Now although it is posed as a GQ question am also interested to garner doper’s opinions as to what should constitute a valid sentence for murder, hence its wallowing in IMHO.
In the UK the only sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
However, several years ago, that usually meant ten years incarcerated with the rest of the sentence served on parole ( I believe this was termed “on license” in the UK)
Now it appears the average tariff is 15 years banged up before the offender is paroled.
A life sentence in the UK rarely means life and Wiki shows that there are currently less than 50 prisoners out of the entire UK prison population serving actual whole life terms
The GQ part is "What is the tariff in your jurisdiction/ country, and the IMHO part is "What do you think it should be and how much discretion should be given to judges to apply sentences?
Dammit! Can a mod please edit the spelling error in my OP title?
I’m intrigued by the use of the term “tariff” to mean “incarceration” or “prison sentence.”
There are two uses of “tariff” that are familiar to me:
A tax, specifically, an import duty.
A document filed by a service provider in a regulated industry (such as a common carrier, like landline telephone service) that sets forth the terms and conditions to be made available to any and all comers
In England and Wales “tariff” means the minimum amount a convicted person has to serve of a sentence before they can be released on license. For most sentences it is half the time. For an indetermind sentence like life, it varies with a minimum usually of 10 years all the way up to whole life, which is quite rare. Please note that they become eligible for license not that they will be released.
IN mine, murder where a life as opposed to a death sentence is given, life cannot exceed 25 years and it’s 14.
Really? I dunno maybe its an anachronism and belongs to an earlier time, but I use it to describe the sentence that must be payed for a particular offence. Am not that smart to have coined the phrase myself and am certain I have heard it used in the same context elsewere particularly when discussing the UK courts.
My state has the death penalty and life without parole as sentencing options for Capital Murder, aka First Degree Murder. We also have life without parole as the only option for Depraved Heart Murder.
I’ve never heard the term “tariff” used this way here in the US, but we definitely have the concept of a mandatory term of incarceration before one becomes eligible for parole. We also don’t call it “license”, but simply call it parole. So, if Joe Murderer serves 20 years and is granted parole and he accepts it and leaves the prison, he is “on parole”.
My state, Rhode Island, abolished the death penalty in 1852. It was later re-established, but no one else was executed. You can get life in prison, including consecutive life sentences.
I think there is a seperate sentence of ‘life without parole’ that is reviewable in some way. I think the review is some type of appeal of the sentence.
I’m satisfied with the current state of the law in Capital Murder and Depraved Heart cases. Death or life without parole. Pretty much the only lawful way out is a rarely granted pardon from the governor.
For lesser crimes, like voluntary manslaughter, I think the maximum sentence is 25 years, with the possibility of parole after 12-15 years served. Our judges tend to pass out the maximum sentence in cases where a jury convicts. There is a strong incentive to plea bargain on the part of the defendants, and the local DAs are pretty reasonable with most things. In my district, we do a negotiated plea system, where the DA will recommend a sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, and the Judges typically impose whatever sentence the DA recommends. I’m satisfied with that system, too.
My own view is pretty simple. I don’t think that a sentence for anything whatsoever should have a mandatory period in prison of over 12 years.
Reasoning is pretty simple. I do not agree, full stop, with punishment as a part of sentencing. I do not believe in free will, but I do believe that we can suffer. Therefore punishment in itself is barbaric.
Thus a prison sentence comes down to two things: public protection, and deterrence. With respect to the latter, I have to say I am very skeptical with most criminals that deterrence actually exists. Nevertheless I am also pretty sure that were there no consequences whatsoever for any crime, then crime rates would increase.
However, I am pretty darn sure that 12 years is enough deterrence for any reasonable person. Anyone not deterred by 12 years behind bars is extremely unlikely to be deterred by a stronger sentence.
I recognise though that some murderers will remain dangerous for more than 12 years. While I would not go so far as saying that anyone who is the slightest risk to society shouldn’t be released from prison, I would certainly want reassurance that releasing a certain person is tolerably safe. I do not define that standard at this time.
So life with a maximum mandatory period of 12 years seems a fair sentence for murder, to me. In fact it seems a fair sentence for almost any crime, as a maximum - depending upon the circumstances.
In Canada the sentence for first or second degree murder is life, without exception (unless the offender is under 18 years old, in which case different rules apply.) For adults there is no provision for any sentence other than life. There is no capital punishment.
Parole may be granted (or not) after 25 years for first degree murder; for second degree murder, from 10 to 25 years, depending on the specifics of the offense and the offender’s criminal history.
Prior to last year there was a parole provision commonly known as “Faint Hope Clause” which made it theoretically possible a person convicted of first degree murder could get parole after, IIRC, 15 years. My understanding is that the offender had to be able to demonstrate an unusual degree of rehabilitation; most applicants were rejected out of hand. The provision no longer applies to anyone convicted of murder, but is still available to anyone convicted before they changed the rules.
It is also theoretically possible that a person convicted of multiple murders could have the 25-years-to-parole rule stack; so, for instance, if one committed a heinous double murder, you’d get life and have to serve 50 minimum. I don’t know if that has ever been applied.
As to my own opinion, I think the rules are reasonable. I am a staunch opponent of capital punishment, which I find barbaric and horrifying, but 25 years minimum for someone covicted of **first degree **murder seems fair.
I live in Texas, where the crowds literally cheer at the idea of us putting people to death. (please don’t ask for a cite, I don’t want to have to show the shame).
I think it’s despicable, honestly. I’m fine with life in prison without parole, as long as that includes a chance for these people to be productive somehow in society, and to maintain some visitation rights with others.
I really feel like in certain cases, despite how cruel it is, we don’t have the level of technology or science to repair the very broken brains that lead to very heinous crimes. So locking them away forever, while not ideal, is the best way to prevent them from committing more crimes.
To me, prison isn’t at all about punishment or revenge, or even deterrence. It’s simply about keeping dangerous people out of society once they have proven to a judge and jury just how dangerous they really are.
I am horrified by the death penalty only because I think of all the innocent people who must have been killed by the state after being wrongly convicted. It’s terrifying. At least, as long as they are alive, they have a chance of proving their innocence and getting out.
